Various Subjunctive Clauses from Exodus

[CMatthiasT88]

1. "Surrexitque Pharao nocte, et omnes servi ejus, cunctaque Ægyptus: et ortus est clamor magnus in Ægypto: neque enim erat domus in qua non jaceret mortuus." -V Ex. 12:30

"And Pharao arose in the night, and all his servants, and all Egypt; and there arose a great cry in Egypt: for there was not a house wherein there lay not one dead."-DR


2. "Tulit igitur populus conspersam farinam antequam fermentaretur: et ligans in palliis, posuit super humeros suos."- Ex.12:34

"The people therefore took dough before it was leavened: and tying it in their cloaks, put it on their shoulders."


3. "Igitur cum emisisset Pharao populum, non eos duxit Deus per viam terræ Philisthiim quæ vicina est: reputans ne forte pœniteret eum, si vidisset adversum se bella consurgere, et reverteretur in Ægyptum."- Ex.13.17

"And when Pharao had sent out the people, the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines which is near: thinking lest perhaps they would repent, if they should see wars arise against them, and would return into Egypt."


I would like to know or double check why these clauses are set in the subjunctive. I'm not sure if it's helpful for me to guess, but I shall anyway for the sake of practice. Thank you!

1. Dependent clause: sequence of tenses: main verb secondary tense: dependent verb in imperfect denotes incompleted action.

2. Dependent clause: sequence of tenses: main verb secondary tense: dependent verb in imperfect denotes incompleted action.

3. paeniteret potential subjunctive in imperfect denotes past tense potentiality.

vidisset potential subjunctive in pluperfect denotes something which "might have happened."

reverteretur potential subjunctive in imperfect denotes past tense potentiality.

[Altair]

I would like to know or double check why these clauses are set in the subjunctive. I'm not sure if it's helpful for me to guess, but I shall anyway for the sake of practice. Thank you!

I am not sure I learned Latin the same way as you and so will just explain my understanding without commenting on the appropriateness of your proposed answers.

The Latin indicative is generally used with a finite verb to describe an event, state, etc. and use it to make an independent assertion about reality. Latin uses the subjunctive to cue the listener/reader to leave the description in mind and not separately project it as reality. English uses a wide variety of structures for this purpose, including sometimes using modal words like “may,” “might,” “should,” etc. The different systems used by the two languages do not, however, line up very well in any sort of correspondence. This makes it hard to keep a consistent English translation of the force of the Latin subjunctive.

1. …neque enim erat domus in qua non jaceret mortuus

In sentence 1, the verb jaceret is used to describe the state of something said not to exist, so this verb cannot in turn be taken as the description of a factual event or state and so should be put in the subjunctive. The triggers for us as learners is a statement about something not known to exist followed by a relative clause. I don’t know the name for this type of subjunctive, but think of it as a subjunctive of characterization of imagined things.

2. Tulit igitur populus conspersam farinam antequam fermentaretur

In sentence 2, fermentaretur is used to describe an event that was anticipated and so irrespective of whether it ever ended up representing reality. In fact, we know that the dough never leavened. To describe this event projected only in the mind and not as reality, the subjunctive is appropriate. The trigger for learners is antequam, which can be used with the indicative for past events, but is usually used with the subjunctive when the event it proceeds is anticipated, circumstantially related to the main verb, and not merely used to introduce an independent event to date something. I guess this is a type of temporal subjunctive.

3. Igitur cum emisisset Pharao populum, non eos duxit Deus per viam terræ Philisthiim quæ vicina est: reputans ne forte pœniteret eum, si vidisset adversum se bella consurgere, et reverteretur in Ægyptum.

The word emissesset was not italicized, but is also in the subjunctive. The words cum/quom and “when” have many more potential meanings than “at the same time as,” such as “after,” “since,” and “beginning at the moment that.” The Latin word is even vaguer in usage than English “when.” To remedy this, Latin differentiates some meanings according to whether the indicative or the subjunctive is used. These differences may, but often don’t, suggest different English translations.

Events used with cum/quom are always temporally related, but sometimes also circumstantially or causally related. Events that are only temporally related and therefore independent of each other tend to be used with the indicative, and those that are circumstantially or causally related tend to be used with the subjunctive.

In sentence 3, emisseret is circumstantially related to the duxit clause and so is used with the subjunctive. The trigger for learners is cum used to describe the circumstances around another event. This use is sometimes called “narrative cum .”

The word pœniteret is used in a clause to describe what is prevented, not what is real, and so is in the subjunctive. The trigger is ne, which I believe always takes the subjunctive. I believe this could be called a negative final clause or negative clause of purpose.

The word reverteretur is coordinated with pœniteret and has the exact same treatment.

The word vidisset is in the protasis of a conditional statement. The rules for what mood and tense to use in conditional clauses are somewhat complex, but as a shortcut, we can say that using the indicative indicates that you take no position on the likelihood that the requirements of a condition are met. If you use the subjunctive, you signal that it is speculative, unlikely, or even contrary to fact.

In the case of vidisset, we are dealing with a mere speculation in a conditional clause, so the subjunctive is used.

As for the choice of tenses, there are four basic ones that differ on two parameters. Is the event being described from a point of view in (1) the present or (2) the past (usually expressed by the tense of the main verb); and is the event (a) unfinished (either not yet begun or in progress) or (b) finished with respect to that point. The present (1a) and perfect (1b) subjunctive express a viewpoint from the present, and the imperfect (2a) and pluperfect (2b) subjunctive express a viewpoint from the past. The present (1a) and imperfect (2a) subjunctive describe an event as unfinished, and the perfect (1b) and pluperfect (2b) describe an event as finished.

Because the given text is a narration of past facts, everything is viewed from the past and the only choice of tenses is between the imperfect (2a) and pluperfect (2b) subjunctive. All the verbs, except vidisset, express an event that is unfinished with respect to the past reference point and so use the imperfect subjunctive. The word vidisset is in the pluperfect subjunctive because it describes its event as finished and prior to the past event of returning described by reverteretur.

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you once again, Altair. What a marvelous distillation of the Latin subjunctive.

[CMatthiasT88]

How would you understand this verse?

Dixit autem Moyses: Iste est sermo, quem præcepit Dominus: Imple gomor ex eo, et custodiatur in futuras retro generationes: ut noverint panem, quo alui vos in solitudine, quando educti estis de terra Ægypti. -V. Ex. 16.32

And Moses said: This is the word, which the Lord hath commanded: Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread, wherewith I fed you in the wilderness, when you were brought forth out of the land of Egypt. -DR

[Altair]

The perfect forms of nōscō actually have a present meaning. The use of the perfect subjunctive form nōverint actually reflects the meaning of the present subjunctive.

The use and conjugation of nōscō has a quirk stemming from the way at least some verbs acted in Proto-European, in which there was a strong distinction between event verbs and stative verbs reflected in the derivational system of verbs. From this meaning of state, those sets of endings may have developed a meaning of a state deriving from an earlier action, which is what we mostly see in Classical Greek. In Latin, these endings then shifted again in meaning to primarily indicate the prior action as a perfective past tense and only occasionally indicate a state resulting from a prior action.

With present tense endings, nōscō means “to get knowledge of something” (an event); however, with perfect endings (i.e., nōvī, etc.), this verb means “to have knowledge of something” (a state). Semantically, there is no difference in tense, only aspect.

Imple gomor ex eo…ut noverint panem

In this sentence, noverint has the endings of the Latin perfect subjunctive, but it has the meaning of the Latin present subjunctive because of the quirk I mentioned above. It is describing a state viewed from the present that has not yet begun as of the reference time indicated by imple. Because of the quirk, the present subjunctive is replaced by the perfect subjunctive.

FYI, this same quirk exists in Classical Greek, where the main word meaning “to know,” οῖδα, uses perfect endings to express present meanings. A similar quirk is probably the reason why many modal verbs in English, like “can,” “may,” “shall,” and “will” don’t end with an S in the third person singular like other verbs. They are thought by many to be the descendants of verbs that used perfect endings to indicate states.

[Altair]

I forgot to mention that ōdī (“to hate) and meminī (to remember) are another pair of common Latin verbs that use perfect endings to express present meanings. As a result, Caligula’s supposed favorite saying uses the perfect subjunctive of ōdī to express a present meaning:

Oderint dum mutuant
Let them hate, so long as they fear

[katalogon]

Altair, thanks for the great help with the subjunctive! Also, thanks to CMatthias for coming up with such good examples.

I'm having trouble for some reason understanding how this last example fits into the list of dependent subjunctive categories given in A&G in section 438.

Maybe it is because the main clause is an imperative and the subject changes from being "you" in the main clause to being "they" in the dependent clause, taking a minimal version to be "imple ut nōverint."

To distinguish result from purpose, I've read that we need to look at the action in the main clause and ask the question why is it being done? or what is its outcome? with respect to that action. So this implies that the main clause is in the indicative mood.

But here we have the main clause in the imperative mood, so to me there doesn't seem to be any "action of the main clause" to refer to.

Purpose and result seem blurred to me.

[CMatthiasT88]

You're welcome, katalogon.

I'm very certain that I'm not the best one here to answer your question, but for the sake of politeness, and in order to keep this thread rolling, I'll give it whirl.

My suspicion is that result and purpose clauses are closely related in meaning, and that often times a sentence could fit both classifications. So, because both types of clauses are quite similar in structure (ut+sub.), if you felt compelled to determine which, it seems that the way to do it would be to consider the context before and after.

In the case of an imperative main clause, I can't think of a situation where a result could be distinguished from a purpose, eg.

"Beat the eggs so as to make an omelette." -making an omelette is both a result and the purpose.

"Goose the throttle so as to spin the tires." -spinning the tires is both a result and the purpose.

[Altair]

Purpose and result can be confusing because a purpose always has a result in mind, and a result is often connected with what someone tries to do with a purpose.

In the negative, the two are easily distinguished in Latin because purpose clauses use ne and result/consecutive clauses use ut non or something equivalent. In the positive it can indeed be confusing.

The difference is that a purpose clause only claims the intent and does not describe the actual outcome. A result/consecutive clause makes no claim about intent but only claims what resulted, results, or will result.

I think any Latin sentence that can be rephrased with a translation using “in order that/to” will always be a purpose clause if there is no change in what is claimed. I think “so that” and “so as to” are ambiguous. And I think any other expression in which “so” and “that” can be used with other intervening words in translation will be a result/consecutive clause if there is no change in the claim.

Let’s try.

Imple gomor ex eo…ut noverint panem

Fill a gomer from it so that they know the bread

“Fill a gomer from it in order that the may know the bread.” This is a purpose clause that explains why the procedure should be carried out but actually does not claim that the bread will be known. It tells you what result to aim for but does not claim success is assured. This is almost certainly the correct interpretation. The result is desired, but not claimed as factual.

“So fill a gomer from it that they will/may know the bread.” This is a result/clause, but with a different meaning. It doesn’t tell you why to do the procedure but only describes the result. It leaves you wondering what special way the filling should be done to achieve the result, but you are told that if you do it correctly, the result is assured. This is unlikely to be the intended meaning of the Latin.

homines rationem habent a natura datam…quae et causas rerum et consecutiones videat

men have reason given by nature (so as) to perceive the causes and results of things(Cicero, de Finibus; Woodcock §158)

“…men have reason…in order that it may/can/will perceive the causes and results of things (but men can be willful and not use reason).” This is a purpose clause, and a result is not guaranteed. This is the intended meaning of the Latin.

“…men so have reason…that it will perceive the cause and results of things (because man is powerless over reason). This is a result clause that says nothing about what man intends, but only what will happen. This is unlikely to be the intended meaning.

tum exortus est Ti. Gracchus qui otium perturbaret

then arose Tiberius Gracchus (so as) to disturb the peace (Cicero, Académica 2; Woodcock §158)

“then arose Tiberius Gracchus in order to disturb the peace (hoping for riots).” This is a purpose clause, but probably not what Cicero meant. It describes Gracchus’ intent, but not what ended up happening after he arose.

“then so arose Tiberius Gracchus that he disturbed the peace (despite hoping for social harmony).” This is a result clause expressing what resulted from his reform attempts, even if they were meant to achieve peace. This is probably what Cicero intended to say. He is stressing what Gracchus ended up producing and not commenting on his intent.

Fecisti ut ne cui innocenti maeror tuus calamitatem adferret[
You saw to it that your grief should not bring disaster on any innocent man (Cicero, pro Cluentio 168; Woodcock §168)/quote]

“You did things in order that your grief not bring disaster on any innocent man.” This is a purpose clause explaining what the good intentions of the addressee were. It does not claim that no innocent men were harmed in any situation connected with the grief of this person. Maybe he refused to let his grief make him give false testimony in a criminal trial, but the judges were bribed to convict anyway. This must be the intended meaning because of the use of ne.

“You so did things that your grief did not bring disaster on any innocent man.” This is a result/consecutive clause. It makes no claim about motive. It claims only what ended up happening. This cannot be the meaning because of the use of ne.

"Beat the eggs so as to make an omelette."

“Beat the eggs in order to make an omelette. (I presume you know how to do that.)” This would be a Latin purpose clause. Maybe the eggs are not actually for an omelette, but for a soufflé. This describes the procedure through the intent, but does not actually guarantee the outcome.

“So beat the eggs that they would make an omelette (and don’t ask me why! Just figure it out!).” This is a result clause, and the eggs cannot be repurposed until after the omelette is made.

"Goose the throttle so as to spin the tires."

“Goose the throttle in order to spin the tires (but don’t worry, because the car is actually in neutral and nothing will happen with the tires).” This is a purpose clause. It guarantees an action but not a result.

“So goose the throttle that the tires spin. (Don’t worry about why or how. I just want the tires to spin.). This is a result clause that deals only with causality, leaving motive unexpressed.

[CMatthiasT88]

Superb, thank you for this clarification.

Now moving on perhaps.

The Latin indicative is generally used with a finite verb to describe an event, state, etc. and use it to make an independent assertion about reality. Latin uses the subjunctive to cue the listener/reader to leave the description in mind and not separately project it as reality. English uses a wide variety of structures for this purpose, including sometimes using modal words like “may,” “might,” “should,” etc. The different systems used by the two languages do not, however, line up very well in any sort of correspondence. This makes it hard to keep a consistent English translation of the force of the Latin subjunctive.

Given this general distinction between the indicative and subjunctive, how would you understand the following verse?

Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, quomodo portaverim vos super alas aquilarum, et assumpserim mihi.- V. Ex. 19.4

You have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and have taken you to myself.- DR

[MattK]

I'm out of my comfort zone with Latin but I believe those clauses are in the subjunctive simply because they are indirect questions.

[Altair]

I believe that Matt is right and that this is the subjunctive used in indirect questions. The underlying direct questions are: “Quae fēcī? Quō modō vōs portāvī et assumpsī mihi?” The next question for learners like me and CMatthias is “But why? What motivates the subjunctive?”

The short answer is that the subjunctive is used to represent reality through the eyes of the subject of the main verb, rather than make an independent assertion about reality.

My original intuition about the subjunctive came from formal English usage and hearing lots of readings of the archaic English of the King James Bible. According to that intuition, the subjunctive should be used whenever the statement is not meant to represent reality. For instance: the sentence “they insist she always is on time” expresses what “they assert” to be factual; whereas, “they insist she always be on time” asserts only there desired state and says nothing at all about her normal promptness. This intuition betrayed me in learning French, Spanish, and Latin, where this is not the only thing the the subjunctive is used for.

For instance, the entire point of a result/consecutive clause is to describe reality, and such clauses take the subjunctive. To translate “Then so arose Gracchus that he disturbed the piece,” we might think to say: “Tum Gracchus exortus est ut ōtium disturbāvit.” This is good Latin, but doesn’t mean what we want. It means: “Then arose Gracchus as/in the same way that he disturbed the peace. Two similar different events are described that have no necessary connection. To make the two events into one assertion, Latin uses the subjunctive. Even in English we could say this with one finite verb and say: “Then arose Gracchus to disturb the piece.” Although both the English and Latin are ambiguous, both forms of expression are common in the respective languages.

In Latin, the issue therefore is not whether you are asserting reality, but whether you want to make an independent assertion about reality. In indirect statement and questions, the consideration is whether you have separate assertions, or just one.

If the speaker/writer asks: “Quid fēcī? (“What have I done?”), this is the speaker’s question asking the listener for a description of reality. If the speaker says: “Quid facerem?, (“What was I to do?”), this could be a deliberative question asking the listener for an opinion or a viewpoint. However, this form also seems to have been used at one time to signal that the question is not really being asked by the speaker, but is asserted by someone else and might mean: “What was I doing, you ask?” It is as if the speaker is considering the question in the mind, rather than actually asserting it.

An example of this latter type of echo question is found in early Latin, Terrence, Phormio 4.4., cited in Woodcock § 179 and quoted from Perseus.

Ge.

Quid ergo narras?

An.
Quid ego narrem?

GETA
What was it then that you did ask?

ANTIPHO
What was it I did ask?

Another example cited from Woodcock §175 and Terrence, Adelphi Act 1, scene 2 (again quoted from Perseus):

Mi.
Dixine hoc fore?

Quid fecit?

De.
Quid ille fecerit? quem neque pudet

Quicquam; nec metuit quemquam

MICIO
aside. Did I not say it would be so? To DEMEA. What has he been doing?

DEMEA
What has he been doing? He, who is ashamed of nothing, and fears no one

From this usage, the subjunctive can then be used to signal that a question about reality is not separately asserted but represents the viewpoint expressed in the main clause, (even if by the very same speaker).

Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, quomodo portaverim vos super alas aquilarum, et assumpserim mihi.- V. Ex. 19.4

These subjunctives represent the point of view of the addressee and are not being directly asserted by the speaker, even though it is obvious from the context that the statements express facts. What is important is that they express the addresses”s experience, not the speaker’s. This distinction is what linguists call evidentiality.

It might seem unnecessary for a language to make such fine-grained distinctions, but in some languages (like Quechua), evidentiality is a primary verb category. It turns out that Latin is more like these languages with its extensive obligatory rules around indirect statement.

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you, and very interesting.

However, it seems that I don't understand indirect questions entirely, I would appreciate it if you have the patience to bear with me for a short time. I've just read it's section in my grammars, but it hasn't entirely sunk in.

Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, quomodo portaverim vos super alas aquilarum, et assumpserim mihi.- V. Ex. 19.4

The first thing I'm wondering is whether you regard quae here to be interrogative, relative, or some combination. Next I am wondering which of the following you would determine to be indirect questions, and which would be something else. And likewise please pardon me if I'm being too hard on you:

I. Sus vidit quae creverint in rure.

II. Sus timuit quae creverint in rure.

III. Sus consideravit quae creverint in rure.

IV. Sus delectavit quae creverint in rure.

V. Sus cecinit quae creverint in rure.

VI. Sus consumpsit quae creverint in rure.

[Altair]

And likewise please pardon me if I'm being too hard on you

Thanks for the kindness, but if you or someone else has a better understanding, I would like to know as well.

My first reaction on reading the passage was to treat the first clause as a relative construction with incorporated antecedent and convert it mentally to “Vos ipsi vidistis ea quæ….” I then hit the following words and had to interpret the subjunctives. My first solution, partly based on Matt’s conjecture, was that these were indirect questions that required the subjunctive,

I have since tried to look more carefully into the difference between indirect questions and relative constructions. Indirect questions are only possible, I believe, with verbs that express communication, mental activity, or sensory experience. With other verbs, there should be no overlap.

With a verb like videō, we do have a verb indicating sensory experience, and so at least the possibility of an indirect question exists. I think, in fact, that there is know necessary conceptual difference between indirect statements and indirect questions, except that interrogative words usually require a subjunctive structure and only occasionally permit an accusative and infinitive construction.

In your examples, consumpsit is not of the appropriate verb type, but I cannot say that none of the others could ever govern an indirect question. Timuit and dēlectāvit

I can clearly distinguish the two semantically when the object of the matrix clause is different from the referent of the subordinate clause (e.g., “I heard who came in (from a friend)” vs. “I heard him/the person who came in (because his arrival woke me up”), but cannot clearly do so when they are the same (e.g., “I saw what happened” vs. “I saw that/the thing which happened”). Although I can still detect a small semantic difference in this latter case, just about every language I know seems to allow, encourage, or even require substantial syntactic overlap in expressing these meanings. In English, I would say “I saw what happened” both to express “I know what happened because I was an eye witness” and “I saw the things that were going on but didn’t know what happened.”

As I result of this inquiry, I cannot say for certain that “quae fēcerim” is an indirect question. If it is, then I have given one explanation for why I believe the subjunctive is used. If it is not then, another perhaps more likely explanation is that it is a generic subjunctive or subjunctive of characterization. Under that analysis, “quae fēcerim” would mean what kinds of things I did. This perhaps better fits the context than my first analysis.

I looked up this passage on Biblehub where it has it translated in multiple languages. I wonder if the Russian translation has to be an indirect question, but don’t know the language well enough to tell. In none of the other languages I know do I have to see an indirect question. All the Germanic ones are as ambiguous as English, and the Romance ones and Chinese seem all to have a relative construction for the first verb. No language expresses the nuance of a Latin generic subjunctive.

אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִׂ֖יתִי לְמִצְרָ֑יִם וָאֶשָּׂ֤א אֶתְכֶם֙ עַל־כַּנְפֵ֣י נְשָׁרִ֔ים וָאָבִ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֵלָֽי׃

The Hebrew uses אֲשֶׁר, (asher) which in this context can only mean “ea quae” with respect to the first verb. The Hebrew has no direct equivalent to “quō mōdō.” If אֲשֶׁר also governs the second clause with its two verbs, which is ambiguous, then it could also be a vague complementizer with the rough equivalent of Latin “quod” or English “that” and permit a translation with “quō mōdō.” If it doesn’t govern the second clause, the second clause is an independent sentence.

Αὐτοὶ ἑωράκατε ὅσα πεποίηκα τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις, καὶ ἀνέλαβον ὑμᾶς ὡσεὶ ἐπὶ πτερύγων ἀετῶν, καὶ προσηγαγόμην ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

As I understand the Greek, ὅσα can have only a relative meaning and usually means something like “all what.” In some cases, I think it can mean something approaching ὡς (“like”), but that usage seems rare and doesn’t seem to fit here. Someone with better Greek than me could comment on this. Either meaning is suggestive of the Latin generic subjunctive but would have, I think, a different nuance. I do not understand how ὅσα can semantically govern the next two verbs unless it has that second rarer meaning, but its absence does track the literal syntax of the Hebrew, unlike the Latin, and could simply indicate a new sentence.

[mwh]

All good stuff. Let me pick out just a few points for brief comment. Forgive my not having read all the posts in their entirety.

> Igitur cum emisisset Pharao populum, non eos duxit Deus per viam terræ Philisthiim quæ vicina est: reputans ne forte pœniteret eum, si vidisset adversum se bella consurgere, et reverteretur in Ægyptum.
Here reputans is behaving like a verb of fearing. That explains the ne.

> Imple gomor ex eo … ut noverint panem.
This is clearly to be understood as a purpose clause. If it were meant as a result clause that would be made clear, e.g. by adding ita before the ut.

> Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, …
quae fecerim is most naturally understood as an indirect question, but it could also be understood as a relative clause (quae = ea quae) with subjunctive. No need to decide which; cf. "what' in English. The Greek is closer to the latter but doesn’t exactly correspond to either (ὅσα ~ quanta).

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you mwh for those confirmations. And Altair thank you for that analysis. For the time being permit me to spend a bit more time on indirect sentences before determining how to classify"vos ipsi" properly. I would like to summarize how I understand indirect sentences, and please correct me if you think I might be in error.

As noted before, an indirect statement is a compound sentence governed by verbs of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving. My grammar gives a list of verbs in Latin which govern or trigger this type of statement.

It seems that indirect questions in Latin are one of three types of indirect statements, which may be expressed in infinitive, participle, or "indirect question" form e.g.

infinitive- Sus videt fructum crescere in rure. The pig sees that a fruit grows in the field.
participle- Sus videt fructum crescentem in rure. The pig sees the fruit growing in the field.
indirect question- Sus videt qui fructus crescat in rure. The pig sees that a fruit grows in the field.

I am told that an indirect question is introduced by an interrogative word (pronoun, adverb, etc.) and takes its verb in the subjunctive. Therefore, an indirect question resembles very closely a normal sentence containing a relative clause. This is because interrogative, relative, and indefinite pronouns all share the same forms in Latin. So evaluating my examples:

I. Sus vidit quae creverint in rure.

II. Sus timuit quae creverint in rure.

III. Sus consideravit quae creverint in rure.

IV. Sus delectavit quae creverint in rure.

V. Sus cecinit quae creverint in rure.

VI. Sus consumpsit quae creverint in rure.

I would say that I, III, IV, and V are indirect questions and that quae's therein are interrogative. The rest are either incorrect or something else.

Following this, my unproven theory I would like you to review is this: A main verb of saying or perceiving can generate a subordinate clause in either a subjunctive or indicative mood.

• Sus videt qui crescat in rure. The pig sees that it grows in the field

The subordinate verb is in subjunctive and therefore qui must be interrogative here and therefore this is what is known as an indirect question.

• Sus videt qui crescit in rure. The pig sees the thing which grows in the field.

The subordinate verb is in indicative and therefore my suspicion is that qui must be relative here and therefore this is only a sentence with a relative clause and would be more explicitly written:

• Sus videt eum quem crescit in rure. The pig sees the thing which grows in the field.

[mwh]

Multiple misapprehensions here, I'm sorry to say.

Indirect questions are not indirect statements. They’re one form of indirect discourse (aka indirect speech). Another is indirect command.

Sus videt qui fructus crescat in rure does not mean The pig sees that a fruit grows in the field (indirect statement: videt fructum crescere). But it could mean The pig sees what fruit is growing …. (indirect question).
Sus videt eum quem crescit in rure does not mean The pig sees the thing which grows in the field. It’s ungrammatical nonsense.

I have to say I think you'd make more progress if you stopped trying to make up sentences and focussed more on understanding real Latin.

[CMatthiasT88]

Dear mwh,

I happen to I know that I learn well from trial and error, composition, and theorizing; and perhaps you are unaccustomed to this type of student. I would like to remind you that is is a public sub-forum for learning Latin, and is not a Master's program or a publishing company. I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive, and so I would like to ask you to please treat me with more patience and politeness for the remainder of this thread, which has been hitherto useful.

[Constantinus Philo]

im afraid all these explanations are wrong

[seneca2008]

I would like to remind you that is is a public sub-forum for learning Latin, and is not a Master's program or a publishing company. I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive, and so I would like to ask you to please treat me with more patience and politeness for the remainder of this thread, which has been hitherto useful.

We are all here learning and at various stages of our studies.

MWH usually provides constructive criticism and that is what he is doing here.

He is gently guiding you to a better path. And given that he has had many years experience as a professional classicist I think what he says deserves to be listened to. I am very grateful that someone of his expertise participates on these boards.

You say "I happen to I know that I learn well from trial and error, composition, and theorizing". Well that sets off lots of alarm bells. There can be no theorising about Latin Grammar until you have thoroughly understood it. Trial and error seems to me a hopelessly unproductive way of trying to learn Latin. Much better to understand some principles from various grammars and then try some prose composition to practice those rules and combine that with extensive reading of texts where you can see how particular constructions are used.

There is a good deal of laborious and erroneous reinvention of the wheel in this thread combined with some reluctance on your part to take account of what you are being told.

You ask for patience and I in turn would ask you for toleration of others points of view. When MWH says you would be better advised taking a different approach that is not an attack on you. You are free to ignore his advice but I think that would be unwise.

I have never found MWH to be impolite except perhaps in certain threads where he has been goaded unnecessarily.

[jeidsath]

The edited version of mwh's post has a considerably more polite tone than the first version, which was presumably what was objected to. For that reason and others, Seneca is considerably off-base on his lecture, which contains some misstatements of fact. I suggest that we all forgive each other and try harder though. Given that mwh has already edited his post, I can clean up the posts following, should you guys ask me to.

[seneca2008]

Let’s all just move on. Let sleeping dogs lie

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you, I am grateful for your attention to this humble thread.

I would like to continue with our discussion on indirect questions, with the goal of resolving it and then returning to the main topic, the various subjunctive clauses of Exodus.

So yes, indirect questions and indirect statements are types of indirect discourse which can take various forms in Latin. As mentioned, because the indefinite, interrogative, and relative pronouns are so similar in form, I am having some trouble distinguishing between a normal sentence with a relative clause and an indirect question. And so I would like your opinion as to whether:

• Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure.

be grammatically correct, or if the subordinate verb must be changed to the subjunctive mood, e.g.

• Sus videt eum qui crescat in rure.

[mwh]

My opinion (with which you may or may not agree) is that Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure is grammatically correct.

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you. Now concerning the verse

Vos ipsi vidistis quæ fecerim Ægyptiis, quomodo portaverim vos super alas aquilarum, et assumpserim mihi.- V. Ex. 19.4

אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִׂ֖יתִי לְמִצְרָ֑יִם וָאֶשָּׂ֤א אֶתְכֶם֙ עַל־כַּנְפֵ֣י נְשָׁרִ֔ים וָאָבִ֥א אֶתְכֶ֖ם אֵלָֽי׃

I find Altair's theory that this could be Subjunctive of Characteristic interesting and possible, however hard to accept given the context and significance of the verse. I think its fair to say that the Vulgate translation is generally literal but at times applies paraphrase for the sake of clarity. Likewise there is seen in the next chapter this verse:

Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֹּ֥ה תֹאמַ֖ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃

Which I have an ever harder time determining to be Subjunctive of Characteristic, and would say this must be an indirect question given the context, etc.

[mwh]

Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22

This cannot be an indirect question, since quod is not an interrogative.

[CMatthiasT88]

I don't understand, perhaps you can explain this further to me, because I have two sources which seem to claim otherwise:

"qui, quae, quod; pronoun.
(I)interrog. adj. in direct and indirect questions; which? what? what kind of?..." Cassell's Latin Dictionary, Simpson, 1959, pg.495

Does this not say that qui is an interrogative adjective? Likewise Lewis and Short confirms this. And furthermore:

"The indirect question, however, uses a subjunctive verb (not an infinitive) and is easily distinguished from other subjunctive clause types since it is introduced by some interrogative word such as quis/quid, qui/que/quod (i.e. the interrogative adjective), quam, quando, cur, ubi, unde, uter, utrum...an (whether...or), -ne (attached to the clause's first word, =whether), etc.; moreover, the verb in the main clause is ordinarily a verb of speech, mental activity, or sense perception..."- Wheelock's Latin, Wheelock, Frederic M., 6th Edition, pg. 204

And does this not confirm that the interrogative adjective qui/quae/quod is typically used to introduce the subjunctive clause of an indirect question?

[truks]

Quod is functioning here not as an interrogative, but as a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause. This usage is not standard in the classical language, which requires the accusative and infinitive construction.

As for the use of the subjunctive or indicative after the conjunction quod used this way, it seems there's no hard and fast rule – usage varied widely in later Latin. For a discussion, see Woodcock at §35.

[mwh]

Yes, CMatthias evidently confused quid (interrogative) with quod. They're not interchangeable.

As truks indicates, quod has by this time come to be used in indirect statements (approaching “that” in modern English). This seems to be the regular function of quod in the vulgate of Exodus (as elsewhere), usually but not invariably with subjunctive, primary or historic according to sequence. I find quia and quoniam as occasional alternatives (e.g. 8.10, 9.29).

quid is used in indirect question, as in classical Latin, with subjunctive, again according to sequence (e.g. 4.12, 4.15, 16.15).

[CMatthiasT88]

A few questions please before determining why "dixit preterea..." might be in the subjunctive:

Quod is functioning here not as an interrogative, but as a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause.

How do you know this?

For a discussion, see Woodcock at §35.

As far as I know, I don't have access to Woodcock, but I do have Bennett, A&G, and Wheelock's. Can you point me to a similar section in those grammars?

evidently confused quid (interrogative) with quod

What about the entry from Cassell's? Isn't quid an interrogative pronoun whereas quod can be an interrogative adjective? Aren't they both interrogative? Can't they both be used in indirect questions?

(e.g. 4.12, 4.15, 16.15).

I have no idea what you are referencing, what work is this?

No one has addressed what I cited from Wheelock's which says that quod [edited] can be used in indirect question. What is your interpretation of that? Is he wrong?

[mwh]

The references I gave are to chapter and verse in the vulgate of Exodus—primary evidence! And quid most certainly can be used to introduce an indirect question, in fact it habitually is. That’s exemplified in the references I provided and elsewhere in the same text (e.g. 10.26, 32.23).
But quid is not quod.

[Altair]

I am approaching this discussion more from a theoretical basis than from what Latin you will generally actually encounter. My reading experience is much too sparse to opine on the latter.

Does this not say that qui is an interrogative adjective? Likewise Lewis and Short confirms this.

This is correct but would be better understood as saying that qui could be used as an interrogative adjective. I think qui is far more common in other uses. A question with a plural interrogative word like "Quae fēcī?" ("What things did I do") is not common in any language I am familiar with, as opposed to simply saying: "What did I do." I suspect it would not have been said often in Latin either; however, in Ex. 19.4, the Greek has a plural construction and so I would guess that the translator, relying partly on the Greek, could have used the plural Latin form to render a closer translation.

*Quod de cælo locutus sim vobis?
What one did I speak to you from heaven?

I think this Latin is technically possible, but the meaning is as odd as my translation. If the intent is to say: "What did I speak...?," then the sentence should say: "Quid de caelō....?," using a noun form of the interrogative.

Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֹּ֥ה תֹאמַ֖ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃

In reading the Latin and encountering a solitary quod not immediately recognizable as a relative pronoun, you would normally expect that the quod is being used as a conjunction or adverbially, not as an interrogative. Truks mentioned this in his post. In post-Classical Latin, the adverbial meanings include the equivalent of "that" used as a conjunction. This meaning is confirmed in the Hebrew use of כִּ֚י, which has no interrogative uses as far as I am aware and is primarily used in this meaning. This meaning must often be judged by context, and even in Classical Latin, quod or even id quod can be used in adverbial meanings, such as "because." E.g.,

T. Manlius Torquatus filium suum, quod is contra imperium in hostem pugnaverat, necari iussit.
T. Manlius Torquatus ordered his own son to be put to death, because he had fought against the enemy contrary to orders. (Sallust, Catiline, 52, 30; Woodcock, Sec. 242)

This is not an indirect question. It is an adverbial use of quod requiring the indicative to express the author's independent assessment of cause, but would be in the subjunctive to express Manlius' thoughts. We would also have to remove the comma in the English translation in that case.

As mentioned, because the indefinite, interrogative, and relative pronouns are so similar in form, I am having some trouble distinguishing between a normal sentence with a relative clause and an indirect question.

This is the key question. I think the answer is that there is no consistent structural distinction.

In French and Spanish, an indirect question may be the preferred structure to talk about people in the very same context a relative pronoun structure would be used to talk about things. In other words, the semantics alone does not dictate whether an indirect question structure will be used. I suspect that Latin has a similar overlap in structures, except that indirect questions might be used even more commonly than in English.

...I would like your opinion as to whether:

Sus videt eum qui crescit in rure.
be grammatically correct, or if the subordinate verb must be changed to the subjunctive mood, e.g.
Sus videt eum qui crescat in rure.

I don't think it is the case that the mere use of videō mechanically requires the indicative or subjunctive, because this verb can be used with several different constructions and with more than one meaning. Relative pronouns can also be used in several different constructions that require the indicative or subjunctive on their own merits. Lastly, the subjunctive was not required in indirect questions in early Latin. All these nuances make it difficult to respond to your question as you have posed it without context and without knowing what exactly you are trying to express.

I suspect that if you are trying to translate "the pig sees (with its own eyes) the one that is growing in the fields," the indicative would be used in Classical Latin. There is no underlying question about what is in the fields. If you are trying to translate, "the pig sees/perceives which one is growing in the fields," the subjunctive would be used. Here, there is an underlying question.

If you want to translate into Latin: "the pig sees what is growing in the fields," I think the semantics is ambiguous and probably, as is the case in French and Spanish, does not fully determine which structure is used. I would guess that either structure is possible but that the subjunctive is probably more routine unless a special nuance is desired.

[mwh]

In short (to cut to the chase),
Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis means “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (KJV), not “Ye have seen what …”. Indirect statement, not indirect question. See my preceding posts.

[CMatthiasT88]

My thinking is in line with Altair's on this. Thank you Altair. mwh my opinion is that it be helpful to students if you fleshed out your thoughts a little more. You're style seems a little terse.

At any rate, I agree that "vos ipsi" is an indirect question. But regarding "dixit praeterea", if it is not an indirect question, why is it in the subjunctive would you say?

[Altair]

As to the question of whether video can introduce indirect discourse, Allen and Greenough explicitly include it in a list of verbs that can do so.

Allen and Greenough say:

A peculiar form of Substantive Clause consists of quod (in the sense of that, the fact that) with the Indicative.

The clause in the Indicative with quod is used when the statement is regarded as a fact:—

“alterum est vitium, quod quīdam nimis māgnum studium cōnferunt ” (Off. 1.19) , it is another fault that some bestow too much zeal, etc. [Here ut cōnferant could be used, meaning that some should bestow; or the accusative and infinitive, meaning to bestow (abstractly); quod makes it a fact that men do bestow, etc.]

They give many other examples but make no mention of the use of the subjunctive with this meaning.

I think Woodcock has a better treatment for the question at issue, saying in effect that in this use of quod, whether to use the indicative or subjunctive depends on whom the facts are attributed to. Two of his examples illustrate this well:

Bell. Hisp. 36 renuntiaverunt quod Pompeum in potestatem haberent. ‘They reported that they had Pompey in their power.’

Here the writer remains neutral about the actual facts of Pompey’s condition and just reports another’s assertion. The emphasis is on what was reported, not on what the actual facts of Pompey’s condition were.

…Contrast Tac. Ann. iii, 54 nemo refert quod Italia externae opis indiget. ‘no one recalls that Italy needs supplies from abroad.’ Here the Indicative indiget records a fact, viewed apart from any observer or reporter

You could reverse these clauses to make the assertion even clearer in English: “Italy needs supplies from abroad. No one recalls this.” The emphasis is on the fact, not the recollection.

Apparently, as truks has already stated, this distinction between indicative and subjunctive broke down in later Latin.

Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis

By the time of the vulgate, the use of the subjunctive here may have been felt to be a simple rule, with little semantic implications. For speakers of early Latin, when this form of expression was fresh, what we perceive to be a main clause and a subordinate clause was probably felt to be more like two independent paratactic clauses. It is hard to render this distinction in English (although maybe not in German), but I will try for those it might help.

Early speakers may have felt the preceding quote to mean: “You saw that. Me having spoken from heaven. (And so should have drawn the right conclusions)(it’s not just what I say happened, but what you saw).” Although there are two clauses, there is only one assertion of fact. Together, they focus on the content of what was seen and let us see through the eyes of the viewer and ponder what thoughts the vision brought as it occurred.

*Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sum vobis

For early speakers, this probably would mean: “You saw that. I spoke from heaven.” There are two facts that are asserted. The nuance is probably clearer if I reverse the order of the clauses: “I spoke from heaven, You saw that (and can’t dispute that it occurred).” Although the meaning is clear, the pragmatics are wrong. The fact of the speaking ends up being salient as the two facts are stated, whereas what we want is a focus on the fact of the perception and it’s content. We want to focus on what was seen, not on what happened to provide the perception.

With the subjunctive, we stay in the mind of the perceiver as the perception unfolds. We can see what registered in the mind of the perceiver and ponder the implications. With the indicative, we are sent by the tenses and moods to some indefinite time after the occurrence of two events and left to figure out what new state of things has come into being because of the events.

As Latin developed into at least some Romance languages, the force of quod increased to make what followed semantically subordinate, making the subjunctive unnecessary. In the Romance languages I am familiar with, the subjunctive would not be used to render the sentence under discussion. Modern English is at a similar stage, leaving many English speakers to feel that the Latin use of the subjunctive in this case is arbitrary. The key is to realize that quod does less than what we think it does and what follows has to stand on its own and clearly indicate if it is a separate assertion or merely an elaboration of someone elses’s perception.

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you for that Altair. Yes I now agree that quod is being used as a conjunction and not as an interrogative adj. in the verse "dixit praeterea". Please pardon me if I've been stubborn. Likewise looking back I'm finally starting to understand a few of mwh's earlier posts, which I think tend to be several levels beyond my beginner understanding. So pardon me mwh if you've suffered any abuse trying to assist. Likewise I had to edit an earlier post from May 15, 2023 1:44 pm changing quid to quod, so please pardon me there as well, I ask for your ongoing patience. But I assure you that this discussion has been helpful to me. I wish that Latin were as clear as Greek, but this is not really the case, is it?

At any rate, the consensus here seems to be that

Dixit præterea Dominus ad Moysen: Hæc dices filiis Israël: Vos vidistis quod de cælo locutus sim vobis. -V. Ex. 20.22

Uses quod as a conjunction and that locutus sim is in the subjunctive because this is an example of an indirect statement. Correct? The trouble we seem to be having is that Classical Latin typically uses an infinitive construction for indirect statement, and that our grammar books do not really discuss an indirect statement with subjunctive verb in the way that we're seeing it here. Correct? We've got Woodcock #35, which I was able to access, but the subjunctive with quod is not really discussed there in very great detail, or in a way I could grasp it well. A&G #438, which gives a list of uses of the subjunctive, mentions indirect question, but not indirect statement. Correct?

Here's what I found when I looked up the conjunction quod in the dictionary:

quod (originally acc. n. of qui), relat. conjunction
...(2) introducing a clause in a more general relation to a sentence; the fact that, the point that... (usually with the indicative unless the author rejects the reason given, or puts it into the mouth of another)-Cassell's

So this implies that quod as a conjunction can begin a clause which either uses an indicative or a subjunctive verb, no? Depending on the author's intent.

Here's what A&G says about the conjunction quod.

"539...Quod is in origin the relative pronoun (stem quo-) used adverbially in the accusative neuter and gradually sinking to the position of a colorless relative conjunction (cf. English that). Its use as a causal particle is an early special development"- A&G

"572. A peculiar form of Substantive Clause consists of quod (in the sense of that, the fact that) with the Indicative. The clause in the Indicative with quod is used when the statement is regarded as a fact." -A&G

Informal Indirect Discourse
592. A Subordinate Clause takes the Subjunctive when it expresses the thought (or speech) of some other person than the writer or speaker:
...3. When a reason or an explanatory fact is introduced by a relative or by quod - A&G

I think 592 is the most pertinent to us. That our verse "Dixit praeterea" might be an example of "informal indirect discourse", and applies the subjunctive because the speaker is different than the author. Furthermore it seems that quod is similar to the other conjunctions si and cum in that they can either be followed with a clause in the indicative or subjunctive depending upon the author's intent.

[CMatthiasT88]

What would you say for this one?

Totus autem mons Sinai fumabat, eo quod descendisset Dominus super eum in igne: et ascenderet fumus ex eo quasi de fornace, eratque omnis mons terribilis.- V. Ex. 19.18

And all mount Sinai was on a smoke: because the Lord was come down upon it in fire, and the smoke arose from it as out of a furnace: and all the mount was terrible.- DR

[mwh]

eo quod “because” is to be distinguished from quod introducing indirect statement. They're probably best approached separately. eo quod is regularly used with subjunctive In the vulgate (at least in Exodus, I haven’t investigated beyond that), so I doubt that any special significance is to be attached to it.

As to tense, fumabat puts the subordinate verbs into secondary sequence (imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive). Here the Lord had come down (plupf.) and the smoke was going up (impf.).

[CMatthiasT88]

Thank you. I didn't find much trying to look up eo quod in the dictionary or grammar. I'm approaching it more or less as a conjunction, perhaps similar to cum causal?

Have you seen eo quod used with indicative?

[mwh]

eo quod is in the Oxford Latin Dictionary (much the best Latin dictionary) under quod 2, but more relevant is 11 on quod “because.” But be warned that that dictionary, like most other Latin dictionaries and grammars, deals primarily with early and classical Latin and not with post-classical Latin such as the Vulgate, where the subjunctive has undergone what we might call mission creep, so that some constructions which in classical times would have the indicative, including eo quod and quod itself, are now more likely to use subjunctive without the earlier semantic differentiation of mood.

As I mentioned, all the instances of eo quod in the Vulgate of Exodus—unless I've missed some—use subjunctive (present/perfect or imperfect/pluperfect according to sequence). But it would not surprise me if the indicative were also used on occasion, with or without significance.